The Dynamic Learning Maps™ Alternate Assessment is based on a different set of guiding principles than other assessments. In this article we describe its characteristics and look at the history of alternate assessment and the problems in implementing useful assessment programs for students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlmondP., WinterP., CametoR., RussellM., SatoE., ClarkeJ., … LazarusS. (2010). Technology-enabled and universally designed assessment: Considering access in measuring the achievement of students with disabilities—A foundation for research. Dover, NH: Measured Progress, & Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
2.
AlmondR. G., DiBelloL. V., MoulderB., & Zapata-RiveraJ.-D. (2007). Modeling diagnostic assessment with Bayesian networks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(4), 341–359).
3.
AlmondR. G., MislevyR. J., SteinbergL., YanD., & WilliamsonD. (2015). Bayesian Networks in Educational Assessment. New York, NY: Springer.
4.
AlonzoA. C. (2007). Challenges of simultaneously defining and measuring knowledge for teaching. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5, 131–137).
5.
AlonzoA. C., & SteedleJ. T. (2008). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421).
6.
AltmanJ. R., LazarusS. S., QuenemoenR. F., KearnsJ., QuenemoenM., & ThurlowM. L. (2010). 2009 survey of states: Accomplishments and new issues at the end of a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/StateReports/2009_survey_of_states.htm.
7.
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258–267). doi:10.3102/0013189X07306523
9.
BechardS., HessK., CamachoC., RussellM., & ThomasK. (2012). Why should cognitive learning models be used as the foundation for designing next generation assessment systems? (Symposium 2011 White Paper No. 1.1). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
10.
BrowderD. M., WakemanS. Y., FlowersC., RickelmanR. J., PugaleeD., & KarvonenM. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 2–16). doi:10.1177/00224669070410010101
11.
CametoR., KnokeyA.-M., NagleK., SanfordC., BlackorbyJ., SinclairB., & RileyD. (2009). State profiles on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. A report from the National Study on Alternate Assessments (NCSER 2009-3013). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/20093013.pdf.
12.
ChenJ., & KingstonN. M. (2013, November). A comparison of empirical and judgmental approaches for detecting instructionally sensitive items. Paper presented at the Conference on Instructional Sensitivity, Lawrence, KS.
13.
ClarkA. K., & KarvonenM. (2015). First contact: A census report on the characteristics of students eligible to take alternate assessments. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation.
14.
ClarkA. K., KarvonenM., KingstonN., AndersonG., & Wells-MoreauxS. (2015, April). Designing alternate assessment score reports that maximize instructional impact. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
15.
CollinsB. V. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
16.
CroccoM. S., & CostiganA. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535).
17.
DaroP., MosherF., & CorcoranT. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction (CPRE Research Report #RR-68). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
18.
DolanR. P., & HallT. E. (2007). Developing accessible tests with universal design and digital technologies: Ensuring we standardize the right things. In CookL.L., & CahalanC.C. (Eds.), Large-scale assessment and accommodations: What works (pp. 95–111)). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
19.
FlowersC., Ahlgrim-DelzellL., BrowderD., & SpoonerF. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 81–92).
20.
FlowersC., BrowderD. M., & Ahlgrim-DelzellL. (2006). An analysis of three states’ alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72, 201–215).
21.
FlowersC., BrowderD., WakemanS., & KarvonenM. (2007, April). Comparison of alignment indices across two alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Performance and portfolio formats. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
22.
HattieJ., & TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
25.
JonesM. H., JonesB., & HargroveT. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
26.
KarvonenM., AlmondP., WakemanS., & BechardS. (2010, April). A synthesis of ten alignment studies of alternate assessment systems based on alternate achievement standards (1%): Implications for assessment system design and policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Denver, CO.
27.
KarvonenM., BechardS., & Wells-MoreauxS. (2015). Accessibility considerations for students with significant cognitive disabilities who take computer-based alternate assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
28.
KingstonN. M., & NashB. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37).
29.
KingstonN. M., & NashB. (2012). How many formative assessment angels can dance on the head of a meta-analytic pin:.2. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31(4), 18–19).
30.
LillardA. S. (2012). Preschool children's development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 379–401).
31.
LinnR. L., GrauM. E., & SandersN. M. (1990). Comparing state and district norms to national norms: The validity of the claim that “everyone is above average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(3), 5–14).
32.
LongabachT., ChenJ., & KingstonN. M. (2013, November). Relationship between test item cognitive complexity, content, and instructional sensitivity. Paper presented at the Conference on Instructional Sensitivity, Lawrence, KS.
33.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
34.
PophamW. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator's call to action. ASCD, Alexandria, VA.
35.
PophamW. J. (2006). All about accountability/phony formative assessments: Buyer beware. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 86–87).
36.
QuenemoenR., ThompsonS., & ThurlowM. (2003). Measuring academic achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities: Building understanding of alternate assessment scoring criteria (Synthesis Report 50). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html.
37.
RoseL. C., & GallupA. M. (2007). The 39th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(1), 33–48).
38.
RuppA. A., TemplinJ., & HensonR. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
39.
SchmeiserC. B., & WelchC. J. (2006). Test development. In BrennanR.L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 307–354)). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
40.
ShepardL. A. (1990). Inflated test score gains: Is the problem old norms or teaching the test?Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(3), 15–22).
41.
ThompsonS., & ThurlowM. (2003). 2003 state special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm.
42.
ThurlowM., ElliottJ., & YsseldykeJ. (1999, April). Out-of-level testing: Pros and cons (Policy Directions No. 9). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/Policy9.htm.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.pdf.
45.
Wells-MoreauxS., BechardS., & KarvonenM. (2014). Accessibility manual for the Dynamic Learning Maps™ Alternate Assessment 2014-15. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation.
46.
WiliamD. (2011, April). Trends in formative assessment theory and practice in the United States. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
